Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

This is an absolute disgrace.

77 replies

TwinkieTwinkle · 20/03/2015 13:07

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11485027/Lecturer-wins-40k-damages-after-wife-deceives-him-into-thinking-child-is-his.html

Has IVF with an ex boyfriend and doesn't tell husband he isn't that father. He has been awarded £40 000 back, only half the money he paid towards the child. Absolutely disgraceful!

OP posts:
woowoo22 · 20/03/2015 13:13

Don't know what I think about this. Sounds like he was also raising the child?

Original poster
TwinkieTwinkle · 20/03/2015 13:17

Yeah. It's awful.

She said she always thought that the man knew that he was "not necessarily" the little boy's father.

How does that make sense, unless she explicitly told him she used another mans sperm for IVF, as well as his? I highly doubt she had any evidence she told him, or else the judge wouldn't have found in his favour.

OP posts:
RachelWatts · 20/03/2015 13:28

Poor child. He's lost the person he thought was his daddy.

850Pro · 20/03/2015 13:31

Its crap, she should be made to pay it all back.

BarbarianMum · 20/03/2015 13:38

I can't work out from the link who said what, and when. It certainly sounds like something strange was going on from the very beginning, otherwise why would he have asked her to sign a document excluding him from 'normal financial responsibility' for the child?

Presume the judge had all the facts so judgement is reasonable. Ditto damages.

Original poster
TwinkieTwinkle · 20/03/2015 13:39

Exactly! A free 40K for raising your child, very nice for her! I feel so sorry for the child and the ex husband. What a nasty, vile woman.

OP posts:
ChipDip · 20/03/2015 13:41

What a vile woman she should have been jailed.

superwoofer · 20/03/2015 13:42

I think he is the disgrace for claiming back the money he spent on the child. He brought the child up, therefore it is his child, regardless of paternity. How will the child feel, knowing his dad clawed back his unnecessary expenses?

dollius · 20/03/2015 13:45

I agree with woofer. How will the child feel knowing that his father rejected him because of DNA. Not the child's fault.

Original poster
TwinkieTwinkle · 20/03/2015 13:46

Seriously? She lied and let him raise a child that wasn't his. I would be more worried about the child finding out mummy lied to him about who his father was for some extra cash. Why should the man raise a child that isn't his? It could be too difficult for him. People may not agree what he has done is right but he is a saint compared to the ex wife. She is the one in the wrong.

OP posts:
BarbarianMum · 20/03/2015 13:46

superwoofer I expect he thought it was his child biologically. Or do you think men shouldn't care about things like that?

dollius · 20/03/2015 13:50

I think the child's needs and feelings should be paramount but clearly this man values his money more than the child who believes him to be his father.

In the article it says he wanted his wife to sign some sort of agreement to let him off the hook re maintenance for any child anyway, so not sure he has exactly covered himself in roses here either.

dollius · 20/03/2015 13:53

A saint? "this child I have raised has the wrong DNA. I want my money back." You really think that is saintly behaviour? I think both the parents sound awful.

wannaBe · 20/03/2015 13:53

There are plenty of threads on here which say that a man shouldn't be forced to pay maintenance for a child that isn't his - there was even one recently where a woman said that her eleven year old wasn't her h's and now they were divorcing she wanted to tell him. The general consensus was that he had the right to know as he shouldn't be expected to pay for a child which wasn't biologically his.

I wonder whether he had said he shouldn't have normal financial responsibility for the child in the beginning because it was IVF so his sample had already been given and perhaps he had agreed to it being used as this might be her only chance of having a baby but given the difficulties in the marriage he otherwise wouldn't have been keen to bring a child into the equation?

Having said that, I imagine given her age the baby will have been conceived via donor eggs so not only has she lied about who the father is but at some point the child will most likely find out she's not his biological mother either.

Disgusting behaviour on her part

seriouslypeedoff · 20/03/2015 13:54

No, I imagine the child will be appalled at his mother for lying about who is father was and taking money off a man she knew wasn't his father.

Original poster
TwinkieTwinkle · 20/03/2015 13:55

Fair enough. Still fares a lot better than the ex. I also think the regardless of your thoughts on him, he paid 80K to raise a child he was tricked into believing was his. Why he didn't win back the full 80K is beyond me.

OP posts:
squoosh · 20/03/2015 13:56

Horrible thing to have happened but my sympathies lie mainly with the child. His world is turned on his head, the man he thought was his father wants financial compensation for the years he acted as his father. Seems a bit cold to me.

superwoofer · 20/03/2015 13:56

I think men should care about the relationship they have built with a child and not reject a child, in any way, with whom they have developed that bond.

His ex wife's actions are despicable, clearly.

My husband is bringing up a child that is not 'his' biologically, although he is of course fully aware of the fact. If I were a morally bankrupt individual and just didn't tell him it wasn't 'his' - it would still be 'his', they would still be father and child. It's about children, not biology.

seriouslypeedoff · 20/03/2015 13:57

The financial agreement they signed isn't really part of this tbh, since he paid out 80k regardless. So don't see why it shows him in a bad light. If she didn't want to use his sperm, she should have told him. Why did she not go to the ex boyfriend for financial support?

seriouslypeedoff · 20/03/2015 13:59

Why is the assumption that he is no longer going to be part of the childs life? Did I miss that bit?

He is looking for his money, which she took fraudulently, back. Or should she be allowed to keep 80k that she took knowing the truth?

WeeMadArthur · 20/03/2015 13:59

I feel so sorry for the little boy who doesn't see that man he thought was his father anymore Sad

Original poster
TwinkieTwinkle · 20/03/2015 13:59

dollius I said in comparison, not that he actually was. Totally different. So who do you think is most in the wrong? The man who wants his money back because he was tricked, hurt and may feel he can't have anything to do with the child and probably needs money after paying out that amount, or the woman who knowingly deceived her husband and child and then wouldn't pay him back the money she got from him under false pretences?

OP posts:
Original poster
TwinkieTwinkle · 20/03/2015 14:02

If I were a morally bankrupt individual and just didn't tell him it wasn't 'his' - it would still be 'his', they would still be father and child. It's about children, not biology.

This is beyond wrong. It would not be your decision on whether they are father and child, it would be his.

OP posts:
superwoofer · 20/03/2015 14:04

Sorry twinkle I can't get any sense out of your comment, can you clarify what you mean, and perhaps even what you think I mean?

wannaBe · 20/03/2015 14:07

well, it sounds from the article that she told him that the child wasn't his in order to limit contact. Hmm

Of course it's not just about money, but e.g. there are situations when a man raises someone else's child, the relationship breaks down and that man still has contact with the child that knows him as daddy. Would people say he should be paying maintenance for that child even if it wasn't biologically his?